ArticleBrain communications2025
Revisiting atypical language lateralization in dyslexia.
Article in Brain communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemispheric lateralization has been central to developmental dyslexia research for over a century, yet its role in the aetiology of reading and language deficits remains elusive. While altered asymmetries have long been implicated, evidence is inconsistent, with limited consideration given to individual variability in lateralization patterns. This study investigated hemispheric lateralization in 35 adults with dyslexia and 35 matched controls using functional MRI across three language tasks: word generation, rhyming decision and lexical decision. Laterality indices were calculated to comprehensively assess the strength, direction, and consistency of activation across global and regional task-specific brain areas. Significant group differences were not found in the absolute strength of lateralization for global measures or any regional measures, except in the fusiform gyrus, where people with dyslexia showed lower asymmetry. Directional asymmetry was similar across the two groups, except in the fusiform gyrus during the reading task, where dyslexic individuals showed a higher prevalence of right hemisphere lateralization compared to controls. Interestingly, we found that dyslexic participants demonstrated greater inconsistency in regional lateralization during reading and rhyming tasks. Among individuals with dyslexia, those with inconsistent lateralization in the reading task had weaker fusiform lateralization, although fusiform lateralization strength itself did not predict reading outcomes. Our findings suggest that dyslexia is characterized by inconsistent, rather than universally weaker, lateralization patterns. Inconsistencies in task-related and regional lateralization may disrupt the efficiency of language networks, contributing to observed reading deficits. By highlighting the role of regional and task-specific inconsistencies, this study provides new insights into the neural mechanisms underlying dyslexia and underscores the importance of considering individual variability in hemispheric lateralization when investigating language disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.